Opinion
No. FST CV 03 0195629 S
June 22, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REARGUMENT DATED MAY 25, 2005 (#206.00)
On May 25, 2005 the Plaintiffs filed a 22-page Motion For Reargument addressed to this Court's Memorandum of Decision dated May 5, 2005 in which this Court granted the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant, Hart Investment Properties, LLC (Hart), dated May 18, 2004 (#186.00). The plaintiff's motion was filed pursuant to P.B. § 11-11. The Defendant, Hart, filed a seven-page Objection dated June 9, 2005.
P.B. § 11-12(c) states: "The motion to reargue shall be considered by the judge who rendered the decision or order. Such judge shall decide, without a hearing, whether the motion to reargue should be granted. If the judge grants the motion, the judge shall schedule the matter for a hearing on the relief requested." P.B. § 11-12(d) states: "This section shall not apply to motions to reargue decisions which are final judgments for purposes of appeal. Such motions shall be filed pursuant to Section 11-11." P.B. § 11-11 does not contain any language making mandatory a hearing on the preliminary decision by the trial judge on whether the motion to reargue should be granted as opposed to a hearing on the relief requested once the motion to reargue is granted. This Court granted the underlying Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. Thus this Motion to Reargue is addressed to a final judgment for the purposes of appeal.
"The purpose of a reargument is . . . to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts." Jaser v. Jaser, 37 Conn.App. 194, 202 (1995). Of these three purposes for reargument, the plaintiffs' motion does not claim that there is a principle of law that has been overlooked nor do the plaintiffs point to any cited decision that would have a controlling effect that has been overlooked. "It also may be used to address alleged inconsistencies in the trial court's memorandum of decision as well as claims of law that the movant claimed were not addressed by the court." K.A. Thompson Elecha Co. v. Wesco, Inc., 24 Conn.App. 758, 760 (1991). No such claims have been made by the plaintiffs. Stember v. Norwalk ZBA, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford Norwalk of Stamford, docket number CV01-0185506S (Black, J., January 3, 2005). The plaintiffs only argue that "the Facts as set forth by the Court evince a serious misapprehension of the facts adduced at trial." The plaintiffs then proceed to list seventy-six (76) sets of facts that this court erroneously found or failed to include in its lengthy May 5, 2005 Memorandum of Decision. "A motion to reargue however, is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple or to present additional cases or briefs that could have been presented at the time of the original argument." Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692-93 (2001); Hartford v. Pan Pacific Development (Connecticut), Inc., 61 Conn.App. 481, 487 (2001); Ferrucci v. Ferrucci, 11 Conn.App. 369, 375 (1987).
As to said Motion for Reargument the court finds:
(1) P.B. § 11-12(c) controls and this court should decide the issue of whether or not to hear the relief requested without a hearing.
(2) P.B. § 11-11 does not prevent this court from denying a Motion for Reargument without a hearing. Cheverie v. Ashcraft Gerel, 65 Conn.App. 425, 441 (2001); Vogel v. Maimonides Academy of Western Connecticut, 58 Conn.App. 624, 632 (2000); Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn.App. 50, 61 (1999).
(3) The plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument does not claim that the court overlooked another court decision, principle of law, or claims of law addressed by the plaintiff or that its Memorandum of Decision contained inconsistencies.
(4) The plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument only claims that this court misapprehended the facts adduced at trial.
(5) Of the claimed 76 misapprehended facts, none were directly related to the factual issue of standing.
(6) The plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument is an attempt to have a second bite at the apple by presenting the plaintiffs' version of the facts.
This Court concludes that there is no merit to the plaintiffs' Motion For Reargument and the Court enters the following order:
The Plaintiffs' Motion For Reargument dated May 25, 2005 is hereby denied without a hearing. Said Motion having been denied, there will be no hearing on the relief requested.
BY THE COURT
KEVIN TIERNEY JUDGE